Slashdot Mirror

He never actualy said "Jews" you know that ? Every speech he said "Jews and Socialists" - he ALWAYS considered those groups in cahoots.

Yes, and Stalin had Trotsky killed — does that mean, one them was not a hard-core Communist?

it was NEVER the platform of the ruling NAZI party, it was abandoned long before then.

First of all, thank you for accepting the listed points from Hitler's "Programme" as common with (other) Socialists. Second, the platform was decidedly not abandoned — the points listed were all implemented, including the "universal healthcare" so dear to the hearts of today's Collectivists (Fascists and Socialists alike), including ANTIFA.

And that's exactly why many Germans voted for the upstart National Socialist party. They were outsiders and the system wasn't working very well under the old parties. Quote on the 1933 election:

Three factors at least have to be taken into account in explaining how, nevertheless, the Fuhrer cult could, within a strikingly short time, extend its hold to wide sections of the population, and eventually to the overwhelming majority of Germans. Of crucial significance was the widespread feeling that the Weimar political system and leadership was utterly bankrupt. In such conditions, the image of a dynamic, energetic, 'youthful' leader offering a decisive change of direction and backed by an army of fanatical followers was not altogether unattractive. Many with grave doubts were prepared to give Hitler a chance. And compared with the pathetic helplessness of his predecessors as Chancellor, the apparent drive and tempo of government activity in the months after he took office seemed impressive.

Secondly, the gross underestimation of Hitler again paved the way for at first reluctant or condescending, and then wholehearted, enthusiasm for the way he apparently mastered within such a short time the internal political situation which had seemed beyond the capabilities of an upstart rabble-rouser. Thirdly, and most importantly, Hitler embodied an already well-established, extensive ideological consensus which also embraced most of those, except the Left, who had still not given him their vote in March 1933. Its chief elements were virulent anti-Marxism and the perceived need for a powerful counter to the forces of the Left; deep hostility towards the failed democratic system and a belief that strong, authoritarian leadership was necessary for any recovery; and a widespread feeling, even extending to parts of the Left, that Germany had been badly wronged at Versailles, and was threatened by enemies on all sides. This pre-existing wide consensus offered the potential for strong support for a national leader who could appear to offer absolute commitment, personal sacrifice, and selfless striving in the cause of inner unity and. outward strength.

http://www.historytoday.com/ia...

Sir John Harington: A witty and erudite figure at the court of Elizabeth I, John Harington is now remembered mainly for two things. One is his cynical epigram on treason: ‘Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.’ The other is his invention of the flush water closet. ... His flush toilet did not catch on and serious improvement of lavatories in England had to wait for the 18th century and the coming of the S-bend.

(I'd actually prepared this one earlier - I'd intended to post the epigram as a reply to an earlier post - I knew the epigram but had to look up who'd said it.)

(remember that the rescue of the Byzantine Empire was the original motivation for the Crusades--the whole thing was ignited by the Byzantine disaster at Manzikert, after all.)

Uh, the crusaders didn't protect Constantinople-- they sacked it.

It was richer, and less well defended, than the Islamic lands that they were nominally aimed at, and they wanted the loot. The crusaders were not the good guys in this portion of history.

If you want to know, why did Constantinople fall to the Moslems? The answer is, it fell because it never really recovered from being sacked by the Fourth crusade.

http://www.historytoday.com/jo...
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/1204.html
http://www.historynet.com/fourth-crusade-conquest-of-constantinople.htm

Bullshit.

China is in complete violation of international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which China itself signed and had agreed to and ">ratified in 1996.

China has been building structures, hunting and mass poaching endangered species and destroying coral reefs within the maritime exclusive economic zones of The Philippines and Vietnam (200 nautical miles or 370km from the coastline of those countries) while at the same time, forming naval blockades and harassing fishermen from Vietnam and the Philippines in their own waters. Recently a Chinese fishing vessel was caught with the poaching and mass slaughter of over 500 endangered and protected sea turtles within Philippine waters. Pics of the slaughter.

This article is a must-read on the behavior of the 800lb gorilla China and its bullying tactics: China's Pre-Imperial Overstretch and follow-up article: China and the Mosquitoes.

Another must read is the NY Times article A Game of Shark And Minnow about the ragtag crew of Philippine marines stationed on a grounded derelict ship in the area as an outpost. That NY Times article has a very good diagram on the 200NM exclusive economic zones and China's ridiculous "nine-dash line" tongue-shaped delineation which claims the entirety of the area hundreds of miles away from their nearest legal territory, Hainan Island. The basis of China's 9-dash line claims? Fabricated bullshit. Pre-19th century maps show this. Even China's own historical maps contradict their absurd claims. Bullying, intimidation, violation, invasion and annexation of territories of smaller, weaker states. It's that simple. See also: Tibet.

oh yeah? this says he is dead...

The other magazines I subscribe to are:

The Diplomat (an Australian perspective on world affairs, but much more lightweight than the Economist)
History Today (British history magazine, which is what I'm studying. A bit too middle-brow though *sniff*)
Fortean Times (my favouritest mag ever, a monthly dose of high strangeness)
Skeptical Inquirer (a necessary counterbalance to Fortean Times)
The Skeptic (a necessary counterbalance to Skeptical Inquirer!)
Warship (an Australian naval history/news etc magazine, very much a small press sort of thing. Don't know if I'll keep it up, may look for something a bit more professional)

I probably don't need two skeptical mags. I do feel the lack of straight science in there; tried Scientific American for a while but it's a bit too detailed for me; New Scientist is more like it but as it's a weekly, between that and the Economist I'd never get to read any books! A compromise might be an astronomy (my first love) mag like Sky & Telescope, but then I'd like something with a bit more aerospace type stuff ... Oh well, I read too much anyway!

Moreover, it always struck me as odd that having acheived this momentous feat, they mothballed the Flyer for a couple of years and went back to Dayton to try and sell it, being incredibly secretive in the process - they wanted governments to buy it without letting their experts watch it in flight first! This could be the mark of con men; the alternative explanation is that they beleived they had such a head start on the rest of the world that the US, UK, etc would have to pay up. But if so they miscalculated - only in 1908 did they start publicly demonstrating their craft by which time they were no longer ahead of the game, and the French overtook them while the Wrights stagnated. They never really got the financial return they thought they'd earned.

Not really sure what to make of the idea yet, but the Wrights are not my area of interest as such.

PS I find it hard to believe that Langley's contraption could ever fly. See Hallion on this IIRC.

nothing really major, aside from a British mandate of Palistine and the overthrow of Elected government in Chile with US support.

History Today, 9/11